For example, in the unification of Italy in 1859/60 the Bourbons in Parma and the Two-Sicilies and the Habsburgs of Tuscany were all kicked out of Italy because they were foreign families. I guess the House of Savoy is considered a native dynasty.
You are correct in what I meant with Charles III...he is British despite his ancestry.
I guess that is my basic point. Yes, many if not all Monarchies both reigning and non-reigning are from foreign dynasties. But like Charles III the reigning monarchs of the countries that are still monarchies and most of the heads of the non-reigning monarchies can be considered native now despite thier foreign origins.
I'll use King George III of the United Kingdom as an example. His father (Frederick Louis, Prince of Wales) his grandfather (King George II) and his great-grandfather (George I) and all thier spouses were all born and raised in what is now Germany. So that does make George III German in his ancestry. But he is also British because unlike his ancestors George III WAS born and raised in Britain.
So I guess my basic point is that despite foreign origins of a royal family at some point it's members are considered native to thier adopted country as more and more members are born and raised there. 
Previous Message
When you refer to Charles III, nobody disputes that he is quintessential british, born in the UK, raised as british, despite his ancestry.
The son of a Greek prince from the german Glucksburg house and a british queen whose ancestry was (by origin) half german, half scottish; Elizabeth II being the grand-daughter of a king of german origin, who started his reign as a SCG king and a german mother from the Teck-Wurttemberg house; great-grand daughter of a king who reigned as a SCG king and his danish (of german origin) wife, Gr.gr.grand-daughter of a queen from the Hannover dynasty and her german husband, the Prince of SCGotha.
But your question, if I understood it correctly, was not about the person, but the dynasty and, namely, the first king of such country.
Take Roumania.
The first king, Carol I, was a member of the german Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen dynasty, as well as his nephew, Ferdinand I.
Both born in Germany, raised as germans, german speaking individuals.
Ferdinand's descendants were born in Roumania, raised as roumanians, roumanian speaking persons.
Pss Margarita may embody the roumanian RF and feel roumanian.
But do you have any doubts that the roumanian dynasty is not native from Roumania, but is native from Germany ?
Take the swedish RH.
Of course the present king sees himself as swedish.
But he comes from a family that was not native from Swedem, the french Maréchal Bernadotte, born in Pau.
Carl-Gustav may feel being a swedish native.
His dynasty is not !
In Belgium, the RF descends from the german prince Leopold I of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.
The family may have changed the name to "de Belgique", King Filip may feel quintessential belgian but his dynasty is native from Germany, a branch from the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha ducal house. Previous Message
Is there a compromise or another way of looking at the issue? I think both José and Johan do make good points but are we mixing nationality and ancestry?
I'll use the British Royal Family as my example.
George I and George II were born in what is today known as Germany but at the time was the Holy Roman Empire. But ethnically they were German.
But starting from George III and ending with the current Monarch, Charles III and his grandchildren, they were all born and raised in the United Kingdom.
So the question does become how many generations does a family have to live in that country to be considered a native of that country?
Does the present British Royal Family have German Ancestry (along with other ancestry)? Absolutely! However, as I just mentioned, every monarch from George III until today has been born and raised in the United Kingdom I would call them native.
I'll use myself as an example. I was born and raised in the United States but my ancestry is Irish on both sides of the family as far back as we have researched. I am an American citizen as I was born and raised here but I am only about 4 generations away from my Irish ancestors coming to this country. Am I Irish even though I've never set foot in the country? Or am I an American because that's where I was born and raised?
Can the answer be both?
So Charles III has German Ancestry but because he was born and raised in the United Kingdom he can be considered a native of that country.
These are fascinating questions!
Previous Message
I just don't agree with the concept that if your male line comes from a country you are considered native but a female or mixed male and female line you are not native.
The Nassau dynasty was part of the Holy Roman Empire when Engelbrecht I of Nassau married Joanne of Polanen who was a wealthy heiress in another part of the Holy Roman Empire as the country of the Netherlands had not yet been established.
Joanne's ancestry goes back to the 12th century and through other lines the current king of the Netherlands is a descendant of 9th century rulers in Frisia. The same basically implies to most all reigning dynasties. Constantine II of Greece has ancestry that goes back to the Byzantine emperors. The line may not be from father to son but it does not alter the fact that he is their descendant.
If you follow the limited male line only than the Orleans of France are the only true native dynasty. Im excluded the Spanish line of Luis Alfonso because his line was not French for a few centuries and his father's claim to be a French national was based on his own mother Emanuelle Dampierre and not that his father was a Frenchman even though he was born a Spaniard.
But where did Hugo Capet come from? Nation states as we know today are the product of the Renaissance period or even later.
Native refers in Europe to those nation states. Some only started in the 19th or 20th centuries. So i find the entire concept of native rather ridiculous.
To me it's sexism in it's purest form, something that is illegal in the EU. Previous Message
But King Willem I of the Netherlands was born in The Hague from a paternal line that had lived in the country for centuries before his birth. So that would make the Dutch Royal House a native dynasty.
What would you make of the Windsors?
the first Windsor was George V and his father was most certainly born and raised in the UK. So that would make them a native dynasty.
Why would only the father count? If you inherit the throne from or through your mother would not that line take precedence? It's the Royal line after al.
So for Sweden you could suggest that until the death of Gustav V the dynasty was foreign but became native when his son and heir to the Houses of Holstein-Gottorp and Wasa succeeded as Gustav VI Adolf.
What about the Norwegians. The Glucksborgs are German dynasty but Harald through his mother also traces his line to the previous dynasties does that mean the house became native?
The fact that in France and in major parts of Germany a pure male line of succession was followed does not mean this is how it went everywhere.
Are you less a child of your mother than you are of your father?
If you talk about a non-native dynasty i suggest you could say that of George I of the Hellenes. When a Greek prince of German descendant is invited to become the king in Greece you cannot speak of a native dynasty. But many of his grandchildren were born in Greece of a parent born in Greece. Why would they not be considered native?
You are entitled to disagree with me, but the question remains.
King William I may have been born in the Hague, but he comes from a long line of Orange-Nassaus who were original from what we call Germany today.
It is a dynasty that followed a long line of stadhouders and princes that at a certain time moved to what we call today the Netherlands.
The Windsors are the greatest aberration of this lot.
The Saxons and Norsemen established in Britain.
Then came the french Plantagenet William I, whose family reigned until they were replaced by the welsh Tudors, the scottish Stuarts, the german Hannovers and Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.
There was never a House of Windsor.
It was a creation by a Saxe-Coburg-Gotha king, who felt his name sounded too german, which was normal because it had german roots.
He changed the family name, like he might have changed his christian name.
You claim that G. V was the first Windsor, therefore issued from an english native dynasty as his father was born and raised as english.
Well, Edward VII saw no problem in changeing from the Hannover dynasty (honouring his mother, the queen regnant) to the SCGotha dynasty, honouring the little duchy from his father came from.
And G. V also started his reign as a SCGotha king.
So, no matter how english they might felt, they were issued from two german families, the Hannovers and the Sx.c.Gotha.
To add some confusion, Elisabeth II married Philip, born a prince of Greece from the Glucksburg family, who at a certain time choosed to use the anglicized version of his mother's name, a name that never exhisted before G. V's decision, and wanted to pass it to his son !
The Norwegians were an imported house as well as the Greeks, Roumanian or Bulgarian.
What's the difference between Haakon VII and George I of Greece ?
Anybody is the result of ones parents in equal part, either a royal or a commoner.
But the point is that, for centuries, the male line prevailed and transmitted its name.
When a woman became regnant, their sons usually adopted the father's name, unless they opted - for the fiction - take the Romanov example in ancient days.
When Henry VII died, he was followed by his only son Edward VI who took precedence over his elder sisters Mary and Elisabeth.
For the sake of the argument, what dynasty do you think would have reigned in England if Mary and Philip would have had a son ? My guess, the Habsburg dynasty. Philip would have made a point.
Should William III and Mary have had a son, the english dynasty would have certainly change to Orange.
If Anne and George of Dk's son, the duke of Gloucester, had survived, he would have started a new dynasty.
Same for the stillborn son of Leopold of Sx.C.G. and Pss Charlotte.
In Luxembourg, GDk Jean adopted his father's name de Bourbon-Parma, together with his siblings, until he had a quarrel with the head of the BP and reverted to Nassau.
I suppose yould consider the Braganza dynasty native to Portugal.
Of course it produced several kings born and raised in Portugal, speaking portuguese and abiding to portuguese traditions.
Nevertheless, D. João IV, the first Braganza king, came from a line of dukes, the first one being the son of D. João I, the first king of the Aviz dynasty.
D.João I was the son of D.Pedro I, from the previous Burgundian/Afonsin dynasty, issued from Henri duke of Burgundy, himself issued in the male line from a younger son of Robert II, king of the Franks.
Nobody disputes that the portuguese RF is native from France.
Message Thread
« Back to index